Clinical Decision Support Systems in Hospitalized Older Patients: An Exploratory Analysis in a Real-Life Clinical Setting
Background Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPER...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Drugs -- real world outcomes Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 363 - 370 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cham
Springer International Publishing
01-09-2023
Springer Nature B.V Adis, Springer Healthcare |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background
Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations.
Objective
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies.
Methods
Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts ‘handled’ by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated.
Results
A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (
p
< 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, resulting in 62.4% resolved alerts, compared with 48.0% when no action was performed (
p
< 0.001). In the category renal function, the percentages differed significantly between an action versus no action of the pharmacist at day 1 and at day 3 (16.6% vs 10.6%,
p
< 0.001 [day 1]; 29.8% vs 19.4%,
p
< 0.001 [day 3]).
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the pattern and natural course of clinical alerts of an in-hospital implemented CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. Besides the already known beneficial effect of actions by pharmacists, we have also shown that many alerts become resolved without any specific intervention. As such, our study provides an important insight into the spontaneous course of resolved alerts, since these data are currently lacking in the literature. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2199-1154 2198-9788 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s40801-023-00365-3 |